1. American Craft Beer Fest returns to Boston on May 29 & 30, featuring 640+ beers from 140+ brewers. Tickets are on sale now.

Budweiser - Anheuser-Busch

Not Rated.
BudweiserBudweiser

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
57
awful

5,157 Ratings
THE BROS
80
good

(view ratings)
Ratings: 5,157
Reviews: 1,525
rAvg: 2.35
pDev: 33.62%
Wants: 40
Gots: 671 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Anheuser-Busch visit their website
Missouri, United States

Style | ABV
American Adjunct Lager |  5.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: kbub6f on 11-21-2000

Brewed using a blend of imported and classic American aroma hops, and a blend of barley malts and rice. Budweiser is brewed with time-honored methods including “kraeusening” for natural carbonation and Beechwood aging, which results in unparalleled balance and character.
View: Beers (78) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Budweiser Alström Bros
Ratings: 5,157 | Reviews: 1,525 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of brewmudgeon
3.63/5  rDev +54.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

2009 update--had bud more recently and it is not the bud of old. tastes sweeter, soda poppier, disgusting. wtf? inbev changed it up?

well i'm coming to the end of my pabst and old mil 12-packs, and things have certainly changed. old mil really is old swill, and pabst can make you nauseous after just two. but bud is still quite drinkable. it has a certain cleanness and a zippy refreshing quality the others lack, though you still have to be careful about downing more than two at a sitting.

a few more a few weeks later ... tonight doing a macro comparo, bud, pabst, old mil. bud is holding its own and is really the one that asks to be drunk most. pabst seems best from a critical standpoint, decent in most every way but a bit boring. old mil is certainly worthy too. would take a case of either pabst or old mil in the cooler for a fishing trip no problem. the bud is the most flirtatious of the three though; zippy on the tongue with both bubbles and hoppiness. sweet and sour, sweet then drying. the effects of the rice are noticeable here. seems like there's a little sake mixed in. this is not necessarily the beer i'd take along for an all day thing, but it's playful and fun and worth having a few every now and then.

from a 7 oz bottle brewed one month ago.
pale gold. 1 finger hear takes a fairly respectable time to settle. just a few lazy bubbles drifting up. amazingly decent lace. still prettily clings to the glass after it's empty.
sweet pale malt and perhaps corn in the aroma. sour corn.
the sweet light maltiness is there in the flavor, with a touch of beechwood. (taking those tours helped to place that flavor/smell). hint of bittering hops, just a kiss but enough to balance the light malt. the sour flavor is more noticeable when consumed after eating a sandwich.
body is pretty light, but not as watery as expected.
not sure what's up, but on an empty stomach this bud was quite enjoyable. however, not that it's done there's something a little bit unpleasant in the aftertaste and aftermouthfeel. maybe it's from the beechwood or an adjunct. still, struck me as surprisingly good given what i recalled from a few years ago. drinkability could be more of a 3.5-4 if this is not a recurrent issue (and taste could go to 3.5 if the aftertaste recedes after a couple more rather than accumulates).

Photo of dacrza1
1.53/5  rDev -34.9%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Tawny straw-colored body that produces an abnormal amount of barnacle-like bubbles at the glass...tremendously effervescent... head is unsubstantially inflated early and rescinds to an uneven horizon... smells of corn syrup, sweet malts and through memory, stale frat keg metal... thin, pale and watery, with a bubbly final flourish... aftertaste is a short, lingering fizz... I'm still trying to taste the beechwood--until then, corn and water occupy the majority of the tastebuds... at the risk of sounding crude, this beer has always given me bad gas--and much worse after consuming a 12-pack at the beach, as friends at Wildwood 2000 will attest--Bud may be what is right and wrong with America: quick, easy, light, slightly artificial, consistent, gassy, and the popular choice for everyone from the establishment to the common folk, fathers and uncles (mine included)...

Photo of oriolesfan4
2.35/5  rDev 0%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 4

For what it is, a widely available beer meant to be enjoyed by the masses, it does its job. But, it's high in calories and not that cheap so if you want widely available cheaper beer there's much better options out there. Very hard to tell this from a Bud Light, maybe a hint of more taste but really none at all.

Photo of superdedooperboy
3.01/5  rDev +28.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 5

Poured from a 12 oz. brown bottle into a Michelob pilsner glass. "Born On" date of 04 June 08 is printed on the label; apparently, I just barely made the "Freshest taste" with 20 days to spare.

Bright yellow and crystal clear in appearance with a full two-finger white head that fades rather quickly but leaves fairly nice lacing down the sides of the glass. Very bubbly; quite appealing in the looks department.

Aroma is grassy and faintly citrussy. Not much else detected in the nose.

On the tongue is mostly mild, grassy hops with a faint underbody of sweet grain and biscuit, with a fairly sweet and quickly diminishing finish.

Body is extremely light and spritzy; refreshing and very inoffensive in character. A few of these would almost go down like water.

Budweiser gets a lot of smack laid upon it, but for what it is -- a light, refreshing, highly drinkable brew -- it's not bad. Perhaps a bit characterless, but compared to its Lite counterpart, it certainly leaves the ring a winner.

Photo of woemad
1.61/5  rDev -31.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

I have a confession to make. While I have often belittled this beer, I've rarely drank it. On the rare occaision that I drink an A-B beer, it's usually a Bud Lite. So, here goes. 12oz bottle with a "Born On Date" of June 9, 2008. "Busy" label, featuring lots of text.

As I poured this into a Lang Creek pintglass, I was struck by just how clear this beer was. I know that to describe this beer as looking like a glass of urine is a cliche used by beer snobs everywhere, but that IS what it looks like, though it did produce an inch of fizzy white foam. While the head didn't hang out for too long, the beer did retain a skiff of white foam afterwards. Vague, spotty lace.

Skunk in the nose from the get-go. Also a hot vegetable oil-like scent. Not promising.

Seems corny in the taste, though I believe A-B's adjunct of choice is rice. There also seems to be a slight lemony taste to this beer. Crude grainy taste at the swallow. Not much else going on. Seems blandly dislikable to my tastebuds.

Thin body, as I expected. While mostly watery, the mouthfeel does have a slightly prickly aspect.

Okay, I've given this a shot. I will have no problem disliking this beer to the end of my days now, as my conscience is now clear.

Photo of srrn
1.98/5  rDev -15.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

Ok I did this one as a taste test with another macro American lager. I've not had a Bud in many years and it's partly responsible for my giving up on beer a long time ago (don't worry, I'm back).

American macro lager is not my favorite style but three beers stick out as fine and the Micholob side of AB can be ok too. Now for Bud.

This fizzes exactly like soda, not soda like, as I've written before in some other reviews. No head or lacing period, and no buubles coming up in the glass. Thin mouthfeel and as the beer warms it is undrinkable and flat.

This is unfinished, all I get is a bit of sweet, adjunct mostly, this is not offset with any bitterness whatsoever.

Sorry, not good at all in my opinion.

Photo of tbeck
3.37/5  rDev +43.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Pours a light, clear pale yellow with a thick white head that dissipates quickly. Smells of cereal grains with slight tones of alcohol. Could definetly taste the beechwood with a mixture of cereal grains and hops. This was very sweet, not overpowering, but suprising for a lager. Texture was on the thin side. Overall I could not find anything bad about this. It is a lighter beer with good flavor. An excellent beer for the outdoors, to bad you can no longer call it an American Beer.

Photo of drjones633
4.09/5  rDev +74%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.5

Served out of a 12oz bottle.

A clean golden color.

Smell is small, hints of fruit.

Taste is crisp and refreshing. slight malt and rice flavour

Mouthfeel is watery, but this is good if you are thirsty.

I think as americans we forget our roots.
Prohibition killed off all the small breweries that couldn't make other products to stay afloat, also 3 years before prohibition was repealed the Great Depression hit, beer had to be made cheaply. The Milwaukee breweries and Budweiser kept beer brewing alive in the USA through the great depression.
What was born was a new beer, created out of need. And although its not "great beer" its apart of our history and I appreciate it for what it is.

So to all of those people giving Bud 1's ans 2's I want to remind you, when examining beers we should keep in mind the style we are tasting. Sure Bud isn't as flavorful as a IPA or a Lambic, but its not trying to be either. Its a perfect example of its style.

I love my Franziskaner. I love my Dog Fish Head. And I love my Buweiser.
Please dont be a beer snob, be a beer lover!

Photo of montageman
1.78/5  rDev -24.3%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured into a pint glass.

A: Dull pale yellow appearance with a little bit of bone white head.

S: Not sure how to characterize this. Almost medicinal or grainy. Nothing good here.

T: Strange sweetness like corn and sugar with a finish that is watery and not exciting.

M: Not unlike mineral water, but without the refreshing component of the water.

D: Not my cup of tea, but I can see how this can be consumed in mass amounts - there's really nothing to it. Not recommended.

Photo of changeup45
1.33/5  rDev -43.4%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

Terrible. This is difficult to drink and has an awful aftertaste. I never understood the Budweiser appeal. There's even much better swill out there. Musty, corn, stale, malt creates a bad taste that even lingers a little. The only good thing I can say about this beer is that the commercials are funny. And that doesn't have anything to do with the actual beer but may explain some of the appeal. Ahhh, nothing like a great marketing campaign.

Photo of woodychandler
2.73/5  rDev +16.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

I CAN't believe that I am reviewing Bud. CAN you?

Normally, I give Bud a wide berth as I seem to have a mild allergic reaction to their proprietary yeast strain, but when I found a 10-ounce can, I figured that would be enough to review without getting my bowels in an uproar, so to speak.

My pour produced two fingers' of thick, bone-white head with poor retention. It so quickly reduced to wisps that I began to wonder if it had ever really been there. The nose had definite corn overtones along with a sharp, vinegary odor. The color was a light golden-yellow with NE-plus quality. Hell, this was one of the beers that gave rise to the term. Mouthfeel was thin-to-medium with a definite lager-like sweetness, albeit a watery one. Finish had a mild sweetness that let me know that it was in the lager family, but this could have been so much more. A shame, really.

Photo of schanker21
1.7/5  rDev -27.7%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

A- Piss yellow with a two finger head that dissipates and leaves no lacing.

S- Smells like a sweet, cheap beer.

T- Tastes like it too. Malt and adjuncts are about all I can detect. Budweiser has this terrible taste that I can't quite nail down, but I honestly have a hard time finishing Bud, and that says a lot.

M- Thin.

D- Just plain bad. The first time I ever had Budweiser was after drinking 7 other beers, and I still had a hard time finishing it just because I hate it so much. I'm no beer snob; I won't turn down something when it's offered to me. I'll drink Miller Lite, PBR, Coor's, etc. if I have to, but if my only option is Budweiser, I will pass.

Photo of soulgrowl
2.8/5  rDev +19.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Appearance: A shower of bubbles torrent upwards through this very pale yellow beer to form a fairly decent head with good retention for how fizzy it is.

Smell: Bland nothingness. Mild, crackery malts, a hint of canned peas, and weakly acrid, floral hops.

Taste: Fizzy... I guess that's more mouthfeel, but the carbonation is the most noticeable thing going on here. Good thing, too, because I detect some weird cornmeal sweetness and wet dog musty sourness going on beneath the sleetstorm of bubbles. It's dry enough, though, and hoppy enough - though the hops don't really add any character, just snappy, acidic bitterness.

Mouthfeel: Fizzy and dry.

Drinkability: (shrug) It'll do. It's not "I don't want to drink this ever again" bad, just "I wish I were drinking something better" bad. Which isn't so bad, really. And hey - for all its faults, it is pretty refreshing.

Photo of beerthulhu
2.73/5  rDev +16.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

A: Poured a very clear and light maize color with a surprisingly good head that was frothy and bright white and sat about 1 finger high. Retention was slightly below average and quickly dissipated to a thin, sparse layering with almost no lacing. Visible carbonation was extremely soft.

S: light with some light stale grains, which was pretty much uneventful.

T: A brisk carbonation greets you upon the first sip which brings out the rich corn flavor of the beer. The palate is fairly crisp from the rice as well. There was some malt sweetness and not much hoppiness detected. Overall the beer was crisp, and non-offending, though lacked any real distinguishable flavors, but overall I don't feel you can knock a beer because of its style. It is what it is, an industrial light lager and fit to style and honestly was not as bad as I originally expected.

M: light, watery, and slides off the tongue fairly easily. Had a nice crispness to it and brisk carbonation.

D: While not one I would choose to drink on a regular basis, much less in multiples, I didn't find this beer as offending as I thought it would be, though it was pretty much neutral in flavor it faired much better then anticipated and better then many foreign euro lagers which I sampled. It was cleanly brewed with few if any off flavors for a style that is considered one of the hardest to brew due to its lightness. Of the big 3 macros I would probable rank this a close second behind coors light and far ahead of miller which I found truly offensive taste wise.

Photo of burnstar
3.06/5  rDev +30.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

The king of beers pours pale gold with a medium head that recedes quickly. A small amount of lacing on the surface. Pretty typical macro aroma. A dull sweetness with a touch grassy hops. Taste is crisp. Not very sweet. Just a bit of grassy herbal hops. Balanced. I think you can definitely tell the rice note in this one. It just adds a some lightness and crispness. More pleasant tasting than most macros. Mouthfeel is light but there is definitely a bit of body. Pretty drinkable. Overall this is one of the better macros out there. No off notes. Nothing particularly offensive.

Photo of Bobo77
2.72/5  rDev +15.7%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

After reviewing Michelob Ultra on a hot August day I went ahead and jotted down a review for this.

Standard bottle with a born on date of June 23, 2008.

Pours a pale, yellowish color, not much darker than Bud Light. Foam rose to an artificial looking, Alka Seltzeresque head. The head actually appears lumpy from a hard pour.

The nose showed a light corn and grass aroma with not much else, pretty typical for this style.

The mouthfeel was thin and smooth showing a refreshing crispness. I can see why, served ice cold, this is popular on a hot day.

The taste was light and obviously inoffensive to anybodys palate and finished very clean. Just cold and refreshing and very little flavor to get in the way.

I will give credit where credit is due; I can see this beer washing down pizza or nachos, especially if the selection is all BMC products. Not very good but not as bad as a lot of people here make it out to be. This is probably as light a beer as I would ever care to drink but I would much rather have more malt and hops.

Just as an aside, I find it ironic that my father always considered this a premium beer that he sometimes couldn't afford and therefore would settle for what he called "bitter" beer like PBR. He frowns on me now because I pay even more money for what he also calls "bitter" beer such as Sierra Nevada Pale Ale.

Photo of MrIncognito
3.1/5  rDev +31.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

A - Clear yellow with big lively bubbles. Decent fizzy head that fizzles down to a light lace quickly.

S & T - Wiff of metallic, kind of coppery, followed by faint wheat smell. Somewhat sweet in smell. Taste is mostly the same. There's this mix of metal and wheat with very minimal hops. Definite corn mash in here. Not much bitterness here. Clean and pretty crisp.

M - Very fizzy at first but becomes almost flat near the end. Relatively smooth, but heavy.

Not as bad as I had thought it would be. Lacks complexity and strong flavors, but refreshing overall. Very filling.

Photo of hwwty4
3.08/5  rDev +31.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Thanks Dad for this one.

Poured a 12oz can into my Blue Moon pint glass.
This beer pours a clear straw yellow with just a bit of fizz. I was rather surprised at the lack of head that came out. No lacing. The beers aroma is typical of a macro lager. Hints of corn and subtle non descript sweetness come through. The taste is much the same. All sorts of average going on in this one. The mouthfeel is light and finishes dry. While I know many people would mock me for giving this beer as high a rating as I did, Bud has its benefits and its drinkability is one of them. It's really easy (on one of those nights respect for beer gets tossed out with the empties) to pound several. Its crisp and easy to drink when its ice cold.

Photo of klintok21
2.41/5  rDev +2.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Ehhh, an American classic, yes. A great beer? Not in my opinion. It has a pretty mediocre taste that isn't hard to beat out. I rarely drink this as its close to the opposite of what I like but I don't need to go on. Hey... try it, it is a legend after all. (Personally I like Miller's taste better but I'll drink Bud if it's there)

Photo of PatrickJR
2.26/5  rDev -3.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Had this on tap from a drink stand at the Projekt Revolution tour in Charlotte, NC.

A - Clear yellow with a finger or less of head that disappeared rather quickly.

S - What smell? Faint DMS with some metal and cereal grain.

T - Most of what makes Bud interesting is lost, and much of what makes it slightly offensive is all that's left. Grain husk with a metallic bite at the end was all I could taste.

M - Very fizzy, light bodied. What I expected.

D - This wasn't horrible, but it was definitely a few notches below what I expected. I thought it would be a nice easy drinking brew for the concert (as I don't too much mind Bud from the bottle or can), but for whatever reason this stuff on tap was completely bland and devoid of character.

Photo of Seanibus
2.76/5  rDev +17.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 4

It is a well known fact among critics that there are certain things that are simply "review-proof." Say what you will about the latest production of Les Miserables, or the beef at Morton's Steakhouse, or the literary merits of the latest Dan Brown thriller - the public will still flock there in droves. And so it is with Budweiser. History will little note nor long remember what we write here, but Budweiser will remain.

Serving unit: 1 16 oz can, poured into a plastic cup on a hot day at Lincoln Financial Field ($6.50. Thanks, Aramark!)

Pours a bright yellow with a fluffy, if short-lived head, and great streamers of carbonation from the bottom of the cup. Think what you will of the taste, but it's hard to argue that Budweiser doesn't look like a pretty good beer. Perhaps we are just programmed to enjoy the appearance by generations of advertising. Who's to say?

The aroma is strong and grainy, with a strong sour edge.

The flavor is distinctively Bud - grainy, thin, and distinctively sour, with little hop character or bitterness. It might be kinda good, actually, were it not for the creeping sourness that develops at the back of the mouth. A few minutes after finishing this beer, the back of your mouth will taste like last night's fraternity party. The only cure is brush your teeth or have another Bud.

The mouthfeel is nearly non-existent. You know you have liquid in your mouth and that is all there is to it.

So, is this beer undrinkable? Perish the thought. It is highly drinkable, despite its many and varied flaws. It goes down easy. It tastes mostly OK as long as you don't quit drinking. And on a brutally hot Philadelphia day in the upper reaches of the stadium, it is damned refreshing. Think I need another.

Photo of kinger
1.85/5  rDev -21.3%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

A standard American beer, better than most of the others around but too expensive for what you get. It's what I drink when I'm golfing or at my old man's house but that's about It, hey I'm a Strohs man. Pale yellow pour, faint adjunct-malt aroma, thin and watery, faint cheap flavor.

Photo of Kyle987
2.8/5  rDev +19.1%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Nothing special, but overall refreshing and easy. Pale golden yellow color, perfectly clear, with small and quickly-vanishing head, and very little lacing. Very weak aroma. Taste is boring, but not at all bad. Refreshing, in fact; it's no wonder it's perfect for football and Cardinals games, when you just want something to sip on and get a little buzz. Very clean an over-processed, of course, but not bad. Decent mouthfeel; light, with average or slightly-more-than-average carbonation. Drinkable. Decent.

Photo of HalfFull
3/5  rDev +27.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured into a pint glass from a 12 oz. can. This 'Great American Lager' pours a light straw yellow with a fleeting half inch head. Lacing is short but present.

Nothing much to offer in the smell department, a bit of lager yeast and a hint of rice, and I'm realizing how much I like rice more than corn at this point!

Taste is what it is. Somewhat enveloping on the tongue yet perhaps a bit too much carbonation. So often consumed directly from the can or bottle, I'm glad I poured this one into a glass to give it its fair due.

I rate this beer 3.0 across the board because I use it as, and think it is, a reference point for Macro Lagers worldwide...

Photo of BoSox5902
1/5  rDev -57.4%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

not the king of beers. this is a disgusting beer. it amazes me how many people love this beer. i think it is awful. i guess it is better than king cobra or steel reserve but not by much. this beer is not worth my money. i would not drink it if it was free. i guess the only thing this beer is good for is the economy since it is american made and american owned. anheiser busch is by far my least favorite brewery, they have yet to impress me with anything

Budweiser from Anheuser-Busch
57 out of 100 based on 5,157 ratings.